protection masks and selections

[Casper Boemann]

On Saturday 19 May 2007 12:51, Cyrille Berger wrote:
> On Saturday 19 May 2007, Casper Boemann wrote:
> > Now I wonder if we are indeed going overboard in complexity here. Do we
> > really need protection masks AND per layer selections. To me they kind of
> > fill the same gap.
>
> Not really, remember a bit in the past a discution we had Thomas, you and
> me about the transform tools. In Krita 1.x, if you have a selection, you
> select the transform tool, the user do his transformation, and then it
> erases pixels outside the selection, to at least me, it seems wrong. Maybe
> having a selection that will both protect against writing and allow reading
> and creating a new layer for transformation would be the best solution to
> solve that problem.
Indeed my thoughts for 2.0 is to create a new layer when performing a 
transform

> yes I was wondering the same things :) and didn't took the time to see if
> we had come up with a solution at the irc-meeting, but apparently we
> haven't. There is an other solution, if there isn't a local selection, use
> the global selection, and if there is a local selection, ignore the global
> one.
right a usable option too. I have no real attachment to either as all I will 
be using is the global selection ;)

> And what should the deprecated selectedness() return :)
What the selection defines just as today. Only problem is that it won't take 
protection masks into account.

I chose the deprecation road rather than just reuse selectedness() to make 
sure we change every place that uses selectedness() to indicate writabillity.

-- 
best regards / venlig hilsen
Casper Boemann